Talk:Samir Kuntar

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Banned from the UK

He has been banned from entering the UK see this BBC article --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/8033319.stm -- 19:55, 5 May 2009 Hypnosadist

MEMRI sources

How exactly is MEMRI a reliable source? Pretty much all his statements in this article are sourced to them FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To the editor who keeps reinserting the MEMRI links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMRI#Claims_of_translation_inaccuracy FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • There is no doubt that MEMRI is a partisan source but its translations are regarded as being accurate (albeit selective). Furthermore, the criticisms in the link above come from Norman Finkelstein, who is himself a fierce critic of Israel and anyone who supports it, and the newsource of his comments is itself (Infocus news) extremely bias (as judged by the language it uses and its editorial slant); another criticism comes from a blog. These are hardly convincing arguments. If you have any specific evidence that the quotes references here are inaccurate or misconstrued, feel free to present it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The most damning accusation (mistranslation which completely skews the meaning of a sentence) is reported by the Guardian and CNN, so I don't see your point. MEMRI is unreliable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • There have been a handful of allegations from questionable sources. The Guardian reference is not to a news article but to a blog operated by one of its writers. CNN did not make these allegations, one of its contributors did, and only on a rather bias website. Furthermore, even if we accept that the handful of mistranslations MEMRI is accused of are viable, that does not automatically mean that every MEMRI translation is inaccurate. In any case, the mistranslations of which MEMRI is accused of do not even relate to this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

No, it does not mean that every MEMRi translation is inaccurate, it means that MEMRI is an unreliable source and should not be used as sole source of controversial material. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By any reasonable standard -- and especially Wikipedia's comparative citation quality standards -- MEMRi has accurate translations and does not misrepresent media sources. Feeling shame or discomfort when English-speaking audiences get translated Middle Eastern media coverage without sugar coating...doesn't make it an "unreliable source." As long as it is cited as MEMRi - people can go and investigae and judge for themselves. There is no evidence MEMRi is or was purposefully misrepresenting anything. Clearlight418 (talk)

A handful of accusations from blogs and activists is hardly justification for declaring MEMRI "unreliable." If you have any evidence that the citations in this article are inaccurate, please provide it. Otherwise, citing MEMRI as the source of the translations (as has been done for each quote) is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The author of the "blog" post makes the same accusations in actual articles, like this, so it is more a matter of referring to the correct article formats. Bottomline is, MEMRI is partisan and has been accused of skewing translations in Israel's favour by several sources. Let's see what other editors have to say, as this should not turn into an edit war. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have already stated, a clear indication before each quote that MEMRI is the source is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

MERMi is as reliable of a source as anything else that appears as a Wikipedia citations.

Frankly, Juan Cole came off distinctly second-best in most of his accusations of Memri translation inaccuracies, and I really don't see why anti-Memri blog postings are now considered authoritative sources. I support including the references to the translations in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is an old discussion, but I'd agree to removing large-scale MEMRI quotes. I'm not sure what purpose they serve. There are detailed interviews of Kuntar done by Israeli journalists, such as this one, that are probably better to use if necessary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Large scale revert

@Galamore, can you explain why you made such a large scale revert if your only objection was the use of Samidoun? You removed multiple instances of New York Times, etc. Massive reverts to remove one single source you don't like is very WP:DISRUPTIVE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: and @OdNahlawi:, please also join this discussion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Samidoun is a fine source for relaying what Kuntar said, and the Netherlands isnt the arbiter on what is an acceptable source. nableezy - 20:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Samidoun is not a fine source, the fact it is described as a terrorist group says something about its reliability. I am really suprised you are even making this argument. Galamore (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t described as a terrorist source. It’s a registered charity in Canada. That Israel and two of its allies thinks supporting the rights of Palestinian prisoners is an act of terror is not a relevant factor here. This is not a production of the Israeli foreign ministry, I don’t care what the Israeli government says. nableezy - 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Israel and two of its allies", who should we trust when it comes to sources, Iran (as you mention here), or Germany and the Netherlands, two prominent liberal democracies? You were among those who voted to deprecate orgs such as the ADL on Wikipedia, but now, a group labeled as a terrorist organization by two major European countries—probably to be followed by more, as the Dutch decision is recent—is okay? The bias towards terrorist sources (in this case, one identified with PFLP, who were involved in plane hijacking and suicide bombings) is honestly quite concerning. ABHammad (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We don’t trust any nations view of some source is the obvious answer to that question. This isn’t a project that take the interests of Israel or Iran or anybody else into consideration. And please don’t distort what Samidoun is, Germany banned it for expressing support for the attack by Hamas. It’s just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP. Israel also claims defence for children’s international is a terrorist organization. That isn’t a concern for Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: That's wrong. Samidoun is also proscribed a terrorist group in the United States and Canada . According to the US Secretary of Treasury, Samidoun is "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)", so nope, it's not "just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP." OdNahlawi (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That happened today. nableezy - 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

mistake on the page..

It says that there were two civilians that were killed. There were three. Two children and the father. I don't think this is controversial. Toddkaplan (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)